About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. what have we learned about this? the first thing we are learning is that, who are the kids that use this? they are not just any low-income kids. they tend to be the kids performing the worst in the traditional public schools. it looks like that is a little bit of an argument in favor of mix match. maybe some are doing poorly and parents were trying to find alternative options for them. whether or not they are succeeding is an open question. the second thing we have learned about this is kids who are participating in the voucher program are do we know better than average then the kids that would have done had they stayed in the public-school to the extent we are able to tell. there are to the statistics involved in that. more to be that i would really like. my professional judgment says they are doing no better or worse than average than they would have done on the public schools. it can interpret that positively or negatively. people who interpret that as negatively say if they are not doing any better, when are we taking money away from public schools to give it to private schools
created by congress to govern. we were created to help govern the nation. this is what brings us to our hearing today. we will focus on the impact of the sequester. i think it is a bad idea. it is bad policy. it is a bad economic policy. it is bad governing policy. i really do not like it. it is working with the leadership to be able to find a way to avoid the sequester in the hopes that a higher power find a way for the nine years that it is mandated. what we hope to accomplish today is to take a look at the impacts if the sequester happens for the american people. thank you for everyone coming. we thank you for speaking about defense. it has been well heard and well spoken. we look toward to hearing from you, secretary napolitano. in the u.s. military, military, those who wear the uniform, will be protected in the sequester, and they should. there are others that need to be protected. what is the impact of them? and also the future of the country, the ability to -- the middle class. this is where secretary donovan, we want to talk to about housing and the economy. what is it that we n
>> let's talk about recent comments in canada, the u.s. ambassador to canada and find that more action by canada on climate change might make it easier for the president to approve keystone. how did you interpret those comments? >> i think it was another opportunity to talk about what we are doing. i believe for the president and for canada, it is both. you can actually improve energy security and in our neighborhood of north america and with vehicle emissions standards, coal plants standards, you will eventually see that in the united states. nobody is replacing a coal plant with coal again. they are replacing it with natural gas. it reduces emissions by 50%. i did not see that as a quid pro quo. when the secretary of state and our minister of foreign affairs met and had a press conference, they talked about both climate change and energy security. we talked about vehicle emissions standards. th minister talked about the action we've taken had the the united states on coal plants in canada. i closed down some coal plants. i thought it was good for our jurisdiction but i think e
on the climate change front, this might help us. canadian politicians are running around now that there is greenhouse gas admission in the air. they are going to great length to point that out. who is a real climate laggard if the u.s. is not serious on getting on this. >> that is the point. language is important. it can be a real problem. that relativity will be pointed to. given the breath of things, the things that we need to do together and the issues we need to tackle together has a common view. that ranges from foreign affairs to our common economic future. it would be unhelpful if this was more than just a bump in the road that became something that pushed us off the road. >> i think danielle wanted to jump in. before that, i get a sense of your questions in the audience. i see some hands. ok. if you change your mind and more hands went to ask, i will get to that depending on how much time is reserved. >> the decision around the keystone is not necessarily lateral. who will be point our finger at if the president makes a decision we do not like? canada has played a rol
on your tv while you are talking to us. what do you want to see him do next? caller: i would like to see him follow through on health care for medicare and senior citizens and all the people who cannot afford insurance. and insurance is increasing dramatically for normal middle- class people. they will be losing their jobs the cows of the factor that these companies are cutting back, and it is very depressing. host: what did you think about senator rubio's speech? you are a republican. we heard from a prior floridian she was not a fan. what did you think of the content? caller: i thought he was trying to be very honest with the people and trying to tell them basically how he felt, that it really was going to be for the middle class people and how it was going to effect all the middle class people. host: independent line, new york. caller: how are you? host: good, thanks. we heard about immigration. what did you make of the immigration comments? caller: i think that it is about time. as far as i know, he has pretty much sealed the border, which is what the republicans are hinging everythi
already started to affect business decisions. so we've been reminded that while it's critical for us to cut wasteful spending, we can't just cut our way to prosperity. deep, indiscriminate cuts to things like education and training, energy and national security will cost us jobs, and it will slow down our recovery. it's not the right thing to do for the economy. it's not the right thing for folks who are out there still looking for work. and the good news is this doesn't have to happen. for all the drama and disagreements that we've had over the past few years, democrats and republicans have still been able to come together and cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion through a mix of spending cuts and higher rates on taxes for the wealthy. a balanced approach has achieved more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. that's more than halfway towards the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists and elected officials from both parties believe is required to stabilize our debt. so we've made progress. and i still believe that we can finish the job with a balanced mix of spend
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)